1,380 research outputs found

    Digital Theology: Is the Resurrection Virtual?

    Get PDF
    Many recent writers have developed a rich system of theological concepts inspired by computers. This is digital theology. Digital theology shares many elements of its eschatology with Christian post-millenarianism. It promises a utopian perfection via technological progress. Modifying Christian soteriology, digital theology makes reference to four types of immortality. I look critically at each type. The first involves transferring our minds from our natural bodies to superior computerized bodies. The second and third types involve bringing into being a previously living person, or person who has never existed, within an artificial digital environment. The fourth involves promotion of our lives into some higher level computational reality

    (The Impossibility of) Acting upon a Story That We Can Believe

    Get PDF
    The historical sensibility of Western modernity is best captured by the phrase “acting upon a story that we can believe.” Whereas the most famous stories of historians facilitated nation-building processes, philosophers of history told the largest possible story to act upon: history itself. When the rise of an overwhelming postwar skepticism about the modern idea of history discredited the entire enterprise, the historical sensibility of “acting upon a story that we can believe” fell apart to its constituents: action, story form, and belief in a feasible future outcome. Its constituent parts are nevertheless still hold, either separately or in paired arrangements. First, believable stories are still told, but without an equally believable future outcome to facilitate. Second, in the shape of what I call the prospect of unprecedented change, there still is a feasible vision of a future (in prospects of technology and the Anthropocene), but it defies story form. And third, it is even possible to upon that feasible future, but such action aims at avoiding worst case scenarios instead of facilitating best outcomes. These are, I believe, features of an emerging postwar historical sensibility that the theory and philosophy of history is yet to understand

    Laruelle Qua Stiegler: On Non-Marxism and the Transindividual

    Get PDF
    Alexander R. Galloway and Jason R. LaRiviĂ©re’s article “Compression in Philosophy” seeks to pose François Laruelle’s engagement with metaphysics against Bernard Stiegler’s epistemological rendering of idealism. Identifying Laruelle as the theorist of genericity, through which mankind and the world are identified through an index of “opacity,” the authors argue that Laruelle does away with all deleterious philosophical “data.” Laruelle’s generic immanence is posed against Stiegler’s process of retention and discretization, as Galloway and LaRiviĂ©re argue that Stiegler’s philosophy seeks to reveal an enchanted natural world through the development of noesis. By further developing Laruelle and Stiegler’s Marxian projects, I seek to demonstrate the relation between Stiegler's artefaction and “compression” while, simultaneously, I also seek to create further bricolage between Laruelle and Stiegler. I also further elaborate on their distinct engagement(s) with Marx, offering the mold of synthesis as an alternative to compression when considering Stiegler’s work on transindividuation. In turn, this paper seeks to survey some of the contemporary theorists drawing from Stiegler (Yuk Hui, Al-exander Wilson and Daniel Ross) and Laruelle (Anne-Françoise Schmidt, Gilles Grelet, Ray Brassier, Katerina Kolozova, John Ó Maoilearca and Jonathan Fardy) to examine political discourse regarding the posthuman and non-human, with a particular interest in Kolozova’s unified theory of standard philosophy and Capital

    Towards a semiotization of radical alterity: the endeavor of transhumanism in becoming posthumanist

    Get PDF
    http://tartu.ester.ee/record=b2676451~S

    Man is a Downgoing

    Get PDF
    I write in pursuit of the question: what is the difference between Friedrich Nietzsche’s overman and the posthuman foretold by transhumanists? I have found two significant differences between Nietzsche’s overman and the posthuman: Nietzsche does not advocate for the extension of the human life in pursuit of the overman. Quite the opposite, it will take many generations of births and deaths to bring about the overman. Overlong lives block the way to the overman. Life extension is a universal principle of transhumanism. Nietzsche hates the value of equality. He despises its Christian origins. He argues that structural inequality, even a rigid caste structure, is most beneficial for bringing about the higher and highest types of man. Every transhumanist pays homage to equality

    Perfection: United Goal or Divisive Myth? A look into the concept of posthumanism and its theoretical outcomes in science fiction

    Get PDF
    As science races to keep up with science fiction, many scientists are beginning to believe that the next step in human evolution will be a combination of human and machine and look a lot like something out of Star Trek. The constant pursuit of perfection is a part of the human condition, but if we begin to stretch beyond the natural human form can we still consider ourselves human? Transhumanism and posthumanism are only theories for now, but they are theories that threaten to permanently displace the human race, possibly pushing it into extinction. This thesis will look at the theories of transhumanism and posthumanism through the lens of science fiction and ask the question of whether or not technology holds the key to humanities next evolutionary step or its demise

    Transtsendentsus kui ĂŒks teema teoloogias ja tehnoloogias

    Get PDF
    Selles töös uuritakse transtsendentsi tĂ€hendust religioonis/teoloogias ja teaduses/tehnoloogias. Seejuures analĂŒĂŒsitakse "posthumanistlikke" diskursusi valitud religioonides, transhumanismis ja posthumanismis. Uuring pakub vĂ€lja kaks vĂ”imalust horisontaalse ja vertikaalse transtsendentsuse tajumiseks. Horisontaalne transtsendentsus osutab nii ette- kui ka tahapoole, fokusseerides suhetele meid ĂŒmbritsevate mitteinimestega. See hĂ”lmab teaduse ja tehnoloogia kaudu toimuvat tĂ€iustamist seoses universumi mitteinimlike mĂ”juritega. Horisontaalne transtsendentsus osutab inimese kehastusele looduses, vÀÀrtustades sugulust nii elusate kui ka elutute olenditega looduses. See hĂ”lmab piiride ĂŒletamist teadusuuringute ja tehnoloogia rakendamise kaudu, tunnistades, et tehnoloogia kui vahend on osa inimloomusest ja Jumala kingitus. SeetĂ”ttu tuleks tehnoloogiat kasutada tervislikel eesmĂ€rkidel, mis ei kahjusta keskkonnas leiduvaid organisme. Horisontaalne transtsendentsus hĂ”lbustab meeskonna ĂŒlesehitamist, kogukonda, austust ja hoolitsust teise kui iseenda eest. Vertikaalne transtsendents osutab ĂŒlespoole ja see fokusseerib teispoolsusele. See esindab soovi ja nĂ€gemust loodusest eralduda tehnoloogia vĂ”i jumalike vahendite abil. Vertikaalne hĂ”lmab dualistlikku arusaama inimesest, mida saab tĂ€iustada mĂ”istuse/hingede/immateriaalse kehast/materjalist eraldamise kaudu. MĂ”isted ja doktriinid, mis omistavad indiviididele, rĂŒhmadele vĂ”i liikidele eelisseisundi, on vertikaalsed, sealhulgas eitavad inimeste kehastumist looduses. Uurimus koosneb seitsmest peatĂŒkist, millest igaĂŒks edastab ainulaadset, kuid ĂŒhist diskursust. Esimeses peatĂŒkis kaardistatakse ja tutvustatakse uuringut ja kasutatud metoodikat. Lisaks töö sissejuhatusele arutlen teoloogia tĂ€henduse ja teoloogide kohustuse ĂŒle tĂ”lgendada teoloogiat domineeriva kaasaegse arusaama kontekstis. See on vĂ”imalik alternatiivse lĂ€henemise kaudu teoloogia formuleerimisel, mis juurutab teaduslikku ja tehnoloogilist arusaama. Religioonist rÀÀgitakse arusaama all, et hoolimata Ă”petuslikust mitmekesisusest on olemas mĂ”isted, mis iseloomustavad kĂ”iki religioone. SeetĂ”ttu on vĂ”imalik laiendada arutelusid transtsendentsuse ĂŒle kristlikust teoloogiast kaugemale. Teises peatĂŒkis fokusseeritakse Hefneri loodud kaaslooja teooriale, milles presenteeritakse, kuidas teoloogia vĂ”iks olla formuleeritud teaduses. KĂ€sitletakse mĂŒĂŒtide ja rituaalide rolli inimkonna arenguloos, osutades faktile, et inimkonna arenguks on vaja teaduslikke ja religioosseid andmeid. Seega toob see kontseptsioon esile teaduse ja teoloogia teineteist tĂ€iendavad rollid ning selle, kuidas nad vajavad teineteist mĂ”testatud sotsiaalkultuurilise ĂŒlesehituse jaoks. Teoloogiliselt, kui tahetakse mĂ”ista inimest ja tema rolli, on vaja ĂŒmber tĂ”lgendada erinevaid mĂ”isteid, mis aitavad kaasa tĂ€henduse loomise protsessidele. NĂ€iteks imago Dei kontseptsioon teoloogias vĂ€ljendub vĂ”imes langetada otsuseid ja konstrueerida Ă”igustavaid lugusid tagasisideprotsessi kaudu. Seega vĂ€ljendub inimeste ainulaadsus kaasloojatena nende ainulaadsetes omadustes, nagu anatoomilised omadused ja arenenud kognitiivsed vĂ”imed, mis kulmineeruvad vabadusega. Inimese eesmĂ€rki mĂ”istetakse loovuses kui Jumala loovuse peegeldust. Tehnoloogia on seega inimloomuse loomulik osa, tĂ€ites evolutsioonilises keskkonnas inimlikku eesmĂ€rki. Kolmandas peatĂŒkis kĂ€sitletakse teoloogia, tehnoloogia ja transtsendentsi vahelisi seoseid. Transtsendentsuse analoogiaid kasutatakse idee rĂ”hutamisel, kus inimtehnoloogia ja religioossete arusaamade vahel on keerukas suhe. PeatĂŒkis hinnatakse tĂ€iustamise mĂ”isteid ja seda, kuidas teoloogid neid vĂ€ljendavad, rĂ”hutades, et tĂ€iustamist tuleks vaadelda kui igapĂ€evast protsessi, mis on tĂ€iesti erinev transhumanismist. TĂ€iustamine on ressurss, mis annab Homo sapiens’ile eksistentsiaalse eelise evolutsiooniprotsessis, kuna nad puutuvad kokku erinevate keskkonnatingimustega. TĂ€iendusprotsessil on nii teaduslik kui ka teoloogiline ajalugu. Lisaks on tehnoloogia ja teadus suurepĂ€rased tĂ€iustamisressursid ja inimkonna evolutsiooniprotsessides ĂŒliolulised. PeatĂŒkis jĂ€reldatakse, et inimteoloogiline ajalugu viitab sellele, et on olnud jumalikke, tagant Ă”hutatud tĂ€iustusi, mis toetasid inimese eksistentsi pĂ€rast langemist, seega tĂ”hustamine on teoloogiliselt kooskĂ”las religioossete loomisdoktriinidega. Kristlus on jĂ€tkanud mineviku imede tegemist. Kuid praegu tĂ€iustamistehnoloogiate kaudu. Neljandas peatĂŒkis tutvustatakse "posthumanistlikku" diskursust transhumanismis, posthumanismis ja kristluses. PeatĂŒkk aga keskendub posthumanismile ja Haraway jutustusele kĂŒborgist. Posthumanistlikud ideed on kontrastsed transhumanistlikele arusaamadele transtsendentsist. Kuigi transhumanism eeldab tĂ€iuslikkuse uut julget koitu, siis posthumanistid pĂŒĂŒdlevad erinevate konstrueeritud tĂ”kete kaotamise poole, tunnustades universaalset sugulust. JĂ€relikult viitab posthumanismi transtsendentsus samastumisele teiste inimestega, keskkonnaga, tehnoloogiaga jne. Seega on posthumanismi idee transtsendentsusest horisontaalne, kuid transhumanistid keskenduvad vertikaalsele transtsendentsusele. KĂŒborg on posthumanismi vĂ”imas sĂŒmbol ja on olnud "posthumanistliku" tulevikuga seotud peamiste diskursuste tugipunktiks. KĂŒborg esindab ĂŒhtsust, sulandumist, universaalset sugulust ja egalitarismi. „Inimese” idee kĂŒborgi raames on samastatav transhumanismi kui informatsiooniga, kuid erinevalt transhumanismist on informatsioon kehastatud sarnaselt inimese kristliku mĂ”istega. Viiendas peatĂŒkis kĂ€sitletakse transhumanismi ja transhumanistlikke meetodeid vananemise ja surma kĂ”rvaldamiseks. Uurimuses vĂ€ljendatakse seisukohta, et transhumanistlik soov ĂŒletada inimese lĂ”plikkust on inimese kui kaaslooja loomulik kalduvus, kuid see eirab teaduslikke reaalsusi ja inimese kui miljonite aastate evolutsiooni produkti keerulist olemust. Soov vĂ”tta inimestelt nende loomulik konstitutsioon on sĂŒnonĂŒĂŒmne inimliigi hĂ€vitamisega ja nende automaatide surematuks muutmisega. SeetĂ”ttu samastatakse transhumanism pigem pseudoteadusega kui nende vĂ€idetega lĂ€bimurdelise teaduse kohta, sest nad kasutavad oma pĂŒĂŒdlustes arvukalt ebateaduslikke meetodeid. Lisaks sellele on transhumanistide visioonides, hoolimata postreligioossetest hoiakutest, palju radikaalseid religioosseid elemente, sealhulgas gnostitsismi. Transhumanismi ambitsioonid lĂ€hevad kaugemale kĂŒborgi kontseptsioonist, sest kui kĂŒborg vĂ”ib esindada tĂ€iustamist, siis orgaaniline osa vĂ”ib olla vastuvĂ”tlik haigustele, vananemisele ja surmale, kuid transhumanismi "posthumanist" on surematu, vananematu ja haigustele immuunne. Kuuendas peatĂŒkis arutletakse "posthumanistlike" narratiivide ja religiooni vaheliste suhete ĂŒle, sĂ”nastades seisukoha, et religioosset eshatoloogiat tuleks kĂ€sitleda kui "posthumanistlikku" narratiivi. Selle pĂ”hjuseks on tuvastatud sarnasused ilmalike "posthumanistlike" narratiivide ja religioonide eshatoloogiliste visioonide vahel. Selles peatĂŒkis tuvastatakse transhumanismis ja religioossetes Ă”petustes erinevaid kehastatusmĂ”tete varjundeid, millel puudub pĂŒhakirjanduslik ja teaduslik alus, nĂ€iteks Ă”petused, mis stigmatiseerivad seksuaalseid vĂ€ljendusi, soolist diskrimineerimist ja soovi loobuda kehast. Seksismi, gĂŒnofoobiat ja genofoobiat arutatakse kristluses seoses transsendentaalsuse ideega. Uuringus vĂ€idetakse, et selliseid eelarvamusi soodustavad arusaamad on kultuurilised, neil puuduvad pĂŒhakirjalikud alused ja teaduslikud valgustused, seega on tegemist vertikaalsete transtsendentsuse ideedega. Seitsmes peatĂŒkk on uurimuse kokkuvĂ”te ja jĂ€reldused, milles sĂ”nastatakse, et religioon/teoloogia ja teadus/tehnoloogia peaksid olema ĂŒksteist tĂ€iendavad, mitte vastanduvad valdkonnad. Seda seetĂ”ttu, et nad erinevad ja lĂ€henevad paljudes valdkondades, et pakkuda mitmekesiseid andmeid inimese tervikliku heaolu jaoks. NĂ€iteks esitavad teadus ja teoloogia erinevaid arusaamu inimese identiteedist ja eripĂ€rast. Siiski lĂ€henevad nad teineteisele selles, et inimene on ainulaadne ja et ta on suguluses kĂ”igi teiste looduses elavate olenditega. Tehnoloogia on Jumala kingitus ja osa inimloomusest, eelduseks ellujÀÀmisele ja tervislikkusele, samas vĂ”ivad mĂ”ned tehnoloogiad kujutada ohtu elule, sealhulgas inimese vĂ€ljasuremisele. SeetĂ”ttu peab usukogukond aktiivselt tegelema tehnoloogiaga, et tagada kaasloojate tehnoloogiate levik. LĂ”puks, naistevastane vĂ€givald on paljudes kultuurides endeemiline, mis on inimkonna dehumaniseerimise vahend, mille vastu vĂ”itlemisel peaks usukogukond olema esirinnas. Siiski on paljudes religioonides ĂŒldiselt ja eriti kristluses kehtestatud naissoost vĂ€givalla nĂ€ilisus, mis muudab vĂ”imatuks selliste sotsiaalsete hĂ€dade vastu vĂ”itlemise. Õpetused, mis toidavad segregatsiooni, genofoobiat ja seksismi, tuleks kirikus vĂ€lja juurida. See muudab kiriku usaldusvÀÀrseks, et tĂ€ita oma propageerivat rolli vĂ”rdsete pĂ”himĂ”tete ja vĂ”rdsete vĂ”imaluste tagamisel kĂ”igile. Kui kirik ei eemalda piiranguid ise, vĂ”ib tulla periood, mil seda vĂ”rreldakse ning see omakorda pĂ”hjustaks skandaale, kus kohtud vĂ”rdleksid kirikut kiriklikes rollides naise kehale seatud piirangute kaotamisega.This study explores the meaning of transcendence in religion/theology and science/technology. The effort involves analysing the “posthuman” discourses in selected religions, transhumanism and posthumanism. The study proposes two ways to perceive transcendence horizontal and vertical. Horizontal transcendence points both forward and backwards, focusing on interhuman relationships and one that exists between humans and nonhumans, referred to in the study as “nonhuman other.” Horizontal transcendence involves enhancements that recognise humans’ embodiment in nature. It, therefore, emphasises kinship with both living and non-living entities in nature. It involves moving beyond limits through research and the application of technology in recognition that technology as a tool is part of human nature and a gift from God. Therefore, technology should be employed for wholesome ends rather than harming the other for parochial anthropocentric ends. Horizontal transcendence facilitates team building, community, respect and cares for the other as one would do for him/her self by applying the otherself principle. The principle requires the individual to identify the self in the other, the human and the nonhuman other. Vertical transcendence points upwards, and it is an otherworldly focus. It represents the desire and vision to separate from nature through technology or divine means. Vertical involves a dualistic understanding of the human. The human is perceived as a being that can be enhanced through separation into mind/souls/immaterial from the body/material. Vertical transcendence includes notions and doctrines that ascribe privileged positions to individuals, groups or species and deny humans’ embodiment in nature. It includes transcendence ideas that treat the body with gnostic contempt and facilitate sexism, gynophobia, genophobia, racism and other social exclusive concepts. The research is in seven chapters, each conveying a unique yet collaborative discourse. Chapter one maps and introduces the study and the methodology employed. Besides the introduction of the work, the meaning of theology and the obligation of theologians to interpret theology within the context of the dominant contemporary understanding is discussed. It is suggested that it is possible through an alternative approach to formulating theology that is sensitive to contemporary scientific and technological understandings. Finally, religion is discussed under the notion that despite the doctrinal diversity, there are concepts that characterise all religions. Therefore it is possible to broaden the discussions of transcendence beyond Christian theology. Chapter two focuses on Hefner’s created co-creator theory, a theological concept formulated with the scientific method. Hefner discusses the roles of myths and rituals in human evolutionary history, pointing to the fact that scientific and religious data are needed to develop human society. Thus, the concept brings out the complementary roles of science and theology and how they need each other for meaningful socio-cultural building. Theologically, if humans and their roles are to be understood, there is the need to reinterpret various concepts that help in the meaning-making processes. For example, the imago Dei concept in theology is expressed in terms of the ability to make decisions and construct justifying stories through the process of feedback. Thus, humans’ uniqueness as co-creators is expressed through their unique features, such as anatomical qualities and advanced cognitive abilities, culminating in freedom for technological activities. Furthermore, human’s purpose is understood in creativity as a reflection of God’s creative grace. Technology is thus a natural part of human nature, serving the human purpose in the evolutionary milieu. Chapter three discusses the relationships between theology, technology and transcendence. Analogies of transcendence are drawn to emphasise the idea that there is an intricate relationship between human technology and religious notions. The chapter evaluates the concepts of enhancement and how theologians express them, stressing that enhancement should be seen as an everyday process entirely different from transhumanism. Enhancement is a resource that provides Homo sapiens with an existential advantage in the evolutionary process as they encounter different environmental conditions. The enhancement process has both scientific and theological histories. Furthermore, technology and science are great enhancement resources and vital in human evolutionary processes. The chapter concludes that human theological history indicates that there have been divine-instigated enhancements that supported human existence after the fall. Thus, enhancement is theologically consistent with religious doctrines of creation. Furthermore, Christians promote enhancement, albeit subconsciously, through the demonstration of love via charity activities. The ancient records of miracles continue to manifest in Christianity today through enhancement technologies. Thus the divine-oriented miracles are giving way to technology-mediated miracles. Chapter four introduces the “posthuman” discourse in transhumanism, posthumanism and Christianity. The chapter, however, focuses on posthumanism and Haraway’s narrative of a cyborg. Posthumanist ideas are contrasted with transhumanist notions of transcendence. While transhumanism anticipates bold new dawn of perfection, posthumanists aspire to eradicate various constructed barriers in recognition of universal kinship. Transcendence in posthumanism, therefore, indicates identification with the other; humans, environment, technology etc. Thus posthumanism’s idea of transcendence is horizontal, but transhumanists focus on vertical transcendence. The cyborg is a potent symbol of posthumanism and has been the fulcrum of major discourses associated with the “posthuman” future. The cyborg represents unity, fusion, hybridity, universal kinship and egalitarianism. The idea of the “human” within the cyborg framework is similar to that of transhumanism as "information." However, unlike transhumanism, the "information" is embodied similar to the Christian notion of the human. Chapter five discusses transhumanism and transhumanist proposals for eliminating ageing and deaths. The research expresses the view that the transhumanist desire to overcome human finitude is a natural inclination of the human co-creator. However, it ignores scientific realities and the complex nature of the human being as millions of years product of evolution. The desire to strip humans of their natural constitution is synonymous with annihilating the human species and immortalising their automata. Therefore, transhumanism is identified with pseudoscience rather than their claims of breakthrough science because they employ numerous unscientific methods in their aspirations. Furthermore, despite exhibiting post-religious postures, transhumanist visions have many radical religious elements, including Gnosticism. The transhumanist harbours the ambitions to go beyond the cyborg concept. Because while the cyborg may represent enhancement, the organic part may be susceptible to sickness, senescence and death, but the “posthuman” in transhumanism is immortal, ageless and immune to diseases. Chapter six discusses the relationship between “posthuman” narratives and religion, articulating the position that religious eschatology should be considered a “posthuman” narrative. This is because of identified similarities between secular “posthuman” narratives and eschatological visions of religions. This chapter identifies various shades of disembodied elements in transhumanism and religious doctrine, which lack scriptural and scientific bases. Such elements include doctrines that stigmatise sexual expressions, foster gender-based discrimination, and the desire to abandon the body. Sexism, gynophobia, and genophobia in Christianity are discussed in relation to the idea of transcendence. The study avers that notions that facilitate such biases are cultural, lacking scriptural bases and scientific illuminations. Thus, they correspond to vertical transcendence. Chapter seven constitutes the summary and conclusion of the research, which articulates that religion/theology and science/technology should be seen as complementary disciplines, not opposing fields. This is because they diverge and converge in many areas to provide diverse data for holistic human wellbeing. For example, science and theology present different notions of the identity and distinctiveness of the human person. However, they converge on the uniqueness and their kinship with all other creatures in nature. That technology is a gift of God and part of human nature, a premise for survival and wholesomeness, but “crude” technologies constitute a significant threat of extinction and suffering. Therefore, the faith community must get actively involved in technology to ensure the proliferation of co-creator technologies. Finally, violence against women is endemic in many cultures serving as an avenue for dehumanising society. The faith community should therefore concentrate its advocacy in this area. However, a semblance of violence against the female is instituted in many religions in general and Christianity in particular, making it impossible to challenge such social ills. Therefore, there is the need to eradicate doctrines that nurture segregation, genophobia and sexism from the Church. The eradication of such conduct will make the faith community credible to play its advocacy role to ensure egalitarian principles and equal opportunity for all. If the Church does not remove limits, there could be a period when it will be compared to do so. However, since the Church is the arbiter of freedom and morality, it will be scandalous for the courts to compare the Church to eradicate limits placed on the female body and ensure equity in the Church.https://www.ester.ee/record=b551385

    Infinite Monkeys: Nietzsche and the Cruel Optimism of Personal Immortality

    Get PDF
    Nietzsche is a popular source of inspiration for transhumanist writers. Some, such as Sorgner (2009) and More (2010), argue that Nietzsche ought to be considered a precursor of the movement. Transhumanism is a philosophy committed to the desirability of using technology to transform human beings, through significant alteration of their brains and bodies, into a new posthuman species. One of the defining characteristics of transhumanism is the desire for personal immortality. I argue that this feature of transhumanism is wholly incompatible with Nietzsche’s philosophy, and a close examination of this disagreement brings out the degree to which transhumanists and Nietzsche differ in their values and philosophical commitments. Nietzsche does not think that personal immortality is desirable or metaphysically possible. I show that his views have more in common with philosophers like Bernard Williams and Derek Parfit than they do with transhumanism
    • 

    corecore